Why the Art of 12? There are many references to the number 12.  For just one example 1 + 2 = 3.  1 is considered the number of beginning, after Zero (0), and therefore "creative."  2 is considered the number of "receptive," a double 1+1.  And then the number 3, is the first number of "balance."  A perfect example of this number power:  We The People are protected in our "Bill of Rights" ~" Right To Notice, Right To Respond, Right To Argue, U.S. Constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/mclaughlin/chus.htm

A
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

BY ANDREW C. MCLAUGHLIN

PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF HISTORY
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

D. APPLETON-CENTURY COMPANY
INCORPORATED
NEW YORK LONDON 1936
COPYRIGHT, 1935, BY D. APPLETON-CENTURY COMPANY, INC.

All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publisher

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

"For who are a free people? Not those, over whom government is reasonably and equitably exercised, but those, who live under a government so constitutionally checked and controuled, that proper provision is made against its being otherwise exercised." — John Dickinson, Letters From a Farmer in Pennsylvania (1768)...

... Before the middle of the eighties, as we have seen, the restrictive provisions of the fourteenth amendment, and especially the due process clause of the first section, appeared not very important. The Slaughter-House Cases and the "Granger Cases" seemed to be conclusive barriers against any attempt to subject state legislation to any control that would satisfy the learned counsel who were pestering the Court with ingenious arguments, seeking a decision which would relieve their clients from the burden of uncomfortable statutes. The Court might have grasped a principle out of the air, absorbed it from the nebulous spirit of free institutions as Justice Miller did in the famous case of Loan Association v, Topeka; ^[45] but the use of such a source presented obvious difficulties. The nature of that opinion is, in fact, an illuminating proof of how far the Court was at that time from any realization that the fourteenth amendment offered concrete grounds upon which the substance and effect of state legislation could be successfully challenged. And the time was still some distance ahead when the Court found itself able to gather the spirit of free institutions and of personal liberty under the protecting wings of "due process".